https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=299063 A security bond given to secure another person's debt was treated as a contract of suretyship, not an original joint liability, because the document and surrounding circumstances showed only a collateral obligation by the executant. The absence of a separate express contract between the surety and the principal debtor did not change that character where the bond itself reflected the creditor-principal debtor-surety arrangement. When the creditor later compounded with the principal debtor without the surety's consent, the surety was discharged because the principal liability had been impaired or released without assent. The bond therefore could not be enforced against the surety after the compromise. en-us Tue, 11 Feb 1958 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 02 Dec 2021 17:53:09 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=299063 A security bond given to secure another person's debt was treated as a contract of suretyship, not an original joint liability, because the document and surrounding circumstances showed only a collateral obligation by the executant. The absence of a separate express contract between the surety and the principal debtor did not change that character where the bond itself reflected the creditor-principal debtor-surety arrangement. When the creditor later compounded with the principal debtor without the surety's consent, the surety was discharged because the principal liability had been impaired or released without assent. The bond therefore could not be enforced against the surety after the compromise. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 11 Feb 1958 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=299063